Does Media Format Matter? Investigating the Toxicity, Sentiment and Topic of Audio Versus Text Social Media Messages
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audio messaging and voice-based interactions are growing in popularity. Lexical features of a manually-curated dataset of real-world audio tweets, as well as text and video/image tweets from the same user accounts, are analyzed to explore how user-generated audio differs from text. The toxicity, sentiment, topic and length of audio tweet transcripts are compared with their accompanying text, date-matched text tweets from the same users and date-matched video/image tweets and their accompanying text. Audio tweets were significantly less toxic than both text tweets and text that accompanied the audio tweet, as well as significantly lower sentiment than their accompanying text. The topics and word counts of audio, text and video/image tweets also differed. These findings are then used to derive design implications for audio and conversational agent interaction. This research contributes preliminary insights about audio social media messages that may help researchers and designers of audio- and agent-based interaction better understand and design for different media formats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it